Pelosi: Some of the success of the surge is due to Iran’s “goodwill”

posted at 3:45 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

The quote apparently comes from audio at the San Francisco Chronicle; I’m relying on Commentary’s transcription. This is why I said yesterday that McMaster’s remarks to AEI are a must-read. This sort of willful naivete about Iran’s motives — in this case coming from a woman who not only felt compelled to meet with Assad but whom one House Democratic aide admitted would be “furious” upon hearing Murtha’s report of progress in Iraq — is right at the heart of it. Forgive the long excerpt but I know people aren’t going to read what he said unless I lay it right in front of them, so consider it laid:

I think what Iran has been able to do previously, it has been able to portray their motives [in] Iraq [as] defensive… I think what’s happening and this is one of the fundamental changes, is that the true intentions of Iran had been exposed and are more easily understood not just by us but also by the Iraqi people as really offensive in nature and really trying to keep Iraq deliberately weak so they have a weakened dependent government that has to look to them for support while at the same time they create organizations external to the government, political movements and especially militias, that can be turned against the government they ostensibly support, the Iranians ostensibly support, if the Iraqi government turns hostile to their interests…

When I traveled through the south on a last couple of visits, what I heard – and this is again on the point of militias being increasingly discredited, and this is from Iraqi Shiite leaders who were saying things like Iran is the true occupier of Iraq…

In the case of what Iran is doing in Iraq, it is so damn obvious to anybody who wants to look into it, I think, that is drop the word “alleged” and say what they’re doing, which is, we know for a fact organizing and directing operations against the government of Iraq and against our forces – the government of Iraq forces and our forces – we know they have done that, certainly in the past. We know that they are supplying them with weapons and the most effective weapons that they used to attack the Iraqi people and our forces and these include the long-range high payload rockets that have been coming in from Iraq as well as the explosively formed projectile roadside bombs that come from Iran.

We know that they have trained forces in the employment of these munitions – and in pretty large numbers. We know that they were concerned that their maligned hand being obvious in Iraq would alienate their Arab neighbors so they try Arabize these efforts by using Lebanese Hezbollah for a lot of the training but it’s a pretty cosmetic shift that they’ve made in some portions of the training.

We know for a fact that they have directed assassination operations. They have a reputation of being some of the best assassins in the world. They’ve trained Iraqis to do that. They’ve trained them in skills not only for roadside bombs and in long-range rockets but also in snipers and other skills used to intimidate or kill individuals. And we know that they have been sort of backing all horses to destabilize the situation and we know that their support is continued to key Badr officials who are in influential positions who remain on the payroll of Iran and to advance the interests of Iran and, in some cases, to provide leadership for other militia organizations that are stood up.

We know that they ostensibly have supported this government but have armed, equipped and trained a militia that has been attacking the very government they ostensibly support. And this is not just something in Basra, this is last year. This is in Nasariyah, this is Samwa, this is in Diwaniyahm, this is in Amarah and it was in Karbala in August 26th and 27th of last year. And now again in Basra.

So I think it’s very obvious. Now on this specific question you have – has it increased or has it decreased? I think it’s very clear that what Iran has done over the last year is try to develop a considerable latent capability that it could turn on in short notice. And I think that it may have been that this bold and very quick action by the Prime Minister in Basra foiled what was to be perhaps a much larger and coordinated effort, maybe even coordinated with efforts in other places in the region, like what we’re seen happening right now in Lebanon.

So, anyway, I think it’s very obvious what they’re doing. I think it’s very obvious to Iraqis, it certainly is. The Iraqis I’ve spoken to are incensed about it and I think it’s no longer alleged.

What’s left to say? The irony here is that it’s the left that’s forever insisting Iran’s a rational actor in the cold war mode, diligently advancing its strategic interests whenever the opportunity presents itself. That’s why, we’re told, we shouldn’t worry overly about them having the Bomb; they’re not going to do anything as nutty as launching preemptive nuclear strikes. Pelosi seems here to have abandoned that party line and embraced the flip side of the “apocalyptic Iran” theory: They are irrational, but only insofar as they’re irrationally benevolent in occasionally helping us clean up the quagmire by engaging in acts of “goodwill” — precisely the type of rose-colored idiocy conservatives are worried we’re going to see from President Obama.

Update:Karl chimes in that there is indeed something left to say: “[T]he other irony is that it’s the Left that denies what McMaster is saying about Iran’s meddling in Iraq. Iran is not fueling the conflict in Iraq, but for some reason, talking to the mullahs results in a ceasefire. Funny how that works.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“Goodwill” was the wrong word. However, the Iranians at times chose to play things in a way that was ultimately advantageous to us. As McMaster said, in a way that cuts through the crap on both sides of the arguments, Iran wants Iraq to be one weak nation, not one strong nation or several smaller nations. (Similarly, Iran wants to have exercise enough power to be influential but not so much that Israel or the U.S. has to nuke or invade them.) So Iran walks on both sides to assure both Iraq’s weakness and its unity. The proper thing to say is that Iran’s actions, not “goodwill,” also played a role. Pelosi had a point, but it lacked, as they say, “nuance.” Or correctness.

That the other irony is that it’s the Left that denies what McMaster is saying about Iran’s meddling in Iraq. Iran is not fueling the conflict in Iraq, but for some reason, talking to the mullahs results in a ceasefire. Funny how that works.

But we don’t make our foreign policy on the basis simply of American public opinion. We make it on the basis of U.S. national interests. And it’s up to our policymakers to make a decision about what our national interests are, how to pursue them, how to explain to the American people what’s actually going on on the ground and also to explain to them the cost and consequences of premature withdrawal of U.S. forces, quick disengagement within Iraq and also the opportunities that come with engagement in Iraq over time as a lever against growing Iranian influence in the region, Iranian nuclear weapons programs, the Hezbollahization of not just southern Iraq, which I think we may have arrested in some degree by our current military operations, but also coordination between Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. All sorts of things that will over time compromise U.S. national interests and which in the end I don’t think the American people would like.

“So, Speaker Pelosi, you admit that the surge was successful due to the graciousness of Iran intervening for peace.

I must ask – what exactly took Iran so long to make peace? If Iran is indeed credited for the success of the surge as you suggest, what was the catalyst for the Iranians to end hostilities in Basra? If it wasn’t the increased numbers of American troops and the re-adjustment of American and coalition strategy what was it exactly?

Are you now admitting that the Iranians were a primary factor in the prolonging of said hostilities in Basra and other parts of Iraq prior to the surge?

Haven’t you and other Democrats insisted that Iran had nothing to do with hostilities in Iraq?”

Watch the old crone’s head explode over that one…

That Botox needle must have been pushed in a little too far…

And yes, the quote is accurate. The transcript is to be published tomorrow.

The http://www.schnittshow.com is doing Operation Drill bit. He’s asking his listeners to send a drill bit to your representative and two senators. All drill bits should be sent to the Washington office and not their local offices. Guys/Gals, please help with this and if you have Allah’s email, please let him know. If anyone can post on LGF, please do so and get the word out, let’s flood the mailboxes of the tools in congress/senate. Especially Maxime, I want to socialize oil companies.

Uh,Dinnerjacket,you promised to,umm should I say
change for the better,and I was hoping,uh that you
wouldn’t be bitter over not being able to,uh how
shall I say this,uh not being able to cling to your
nuclear weapons,uh,well look on the bright side,you
still have your bible,oh shoot,I apologize,umm I
meant to say the koran!

Oh,dinnerjacket,please don’t call this late,um,how
should I put this,oh ya unless you want to deal with
Michelle Obama! hahaha. :)

If we are to rely upon the wisdom and judgement of the likes of Pelosi for the next four long very tough dark years, we are in very deep kimchee.

Four years of the Carter Administration were hard on US.

Clinton, Obama, Reid, Durbin, Boxer, Feinstein, and the rest of the Merry Band of Socialist/Marxist Fools want $10.00 a gallon gasoline/diesel, the destruction of the economy, an ugly revision of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and Taxation beyond your worst nightmares.

Did the surge not work because American troops are not good enough to make it work? Are the Iraqi troops better than the American troops?

No, the ‘surge’ worked militarily. McCain and others had called on Bush to send in more troops for many years before it finally happened.

You can’t blame US troops for the rise of Iran. The US invaded with inadequate troops to seal the borders, so Iran was able to infiltrate its neighbor without limitation. Our problems in Iraq have never been related to the military, starting with General Jay Garner. It was the geniuses in Washington who sent in his lordship Jay Bremer and made every other disastrous strategic decision that has turned Iraq into a long struggle.

It’s always the same with these people: donkeys can be mobilized for total war, but only as long as the enemy is Republicans.

Part of a total war mentality is the anathematization of the enemy. They can do no right, have no redeeming qualities, and anything they do that isn’t on its face pure evil must be the product of some hidden nefarious intent.

Ergo, it can’t possibly be the surge that has brought about so dramatic a change on the ground in Iraq. Must be something the Iranians did due to their unwavering conciliatory nature.

Just like it wasn’t Reagan’s willingness to stand up to the Soviets that caused their collapse in the Cold War, but Gorbachev’s reasonableness and willingness to “reach out.” Sure.

Consider George Orwell’s observation about the leftist mindset in 1945:

“It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” [Emphasis added]

There is no difference between the defeatist British left in 1945 and the defeatist American left in 2008. They never learn, because they refuse to.

Thanks for keeping Mr. McMaster’s report on progress in Iraq on the front burner AP. And you definitely picked out one of the hightlights of the entire speech here. Such a credible source for information compared Nutsy Pelosi. I have faith in the American people to understand the difference.

I find myself in the same place that a Southpark character found himself in when he viewed something so hysterically funny, being the cleavaged, literally “butt” faced parents who mistook Kenny for thier missing son, that he lost his sense of humor and was afraid that he wouldn’t get it back… I find this such a humorous line of “realty” that I am frozen and cannot laugh…

I think that Nancy must’ve hit her head when she had fallen and couldn’t get up…. She needs some psychotherapy or shock treatments or something… she appears to be off of her meds…

Well, I just checked all of the networks and must have missed the Republican House members gathered on the steps of the Capital in DC ripping her to shreds. Yep, I guess I just missed them. I will check the newscasts later tonight to see if there is a replay. Wouldn’t want to miss it again.

And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

She must have come to this conclusion based upon her overwhelming military experience…
Considering that Iran has command and control of the Shiite elements (e.g. Badr Corps, Quds Force, etc.,) I guess she is partially correct in saying that they had some control in the battle. As they say, “the enemy has a vote.” I guess the goodwill of the Japanese helped us when they surrendered. I suppose it was Gorbachev’s goodwill that ended the Cold War (oh, wait, he did win the Nobel Failure Peace Prize.) It’s like saying, “Thank you, Hitler, for your kindness in offing yourself.”

If the weasal turds in SF re-elect Pelosi I will loose all faith that there is any sanity in that town.

brtex on May 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Why would you have any faith at all in there being any sanity in San Francisco? The last remnants of sanity fled that leftist sewer decades ago. It is a modern-day version of Sodom and Gomorrah, only with worse management.